Smith v. City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-11136
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Smith v. City of New York, Judge Schofield denied Myra S. Smith’s preliminary-injunction motion because she did not show irreparable harm.
Myra S. Smith’s request to prevent the City of New York from changing or ending her work arrangement or terminating her employment; the order also affects any attempted appeal from the injunction ruling.
What happened
In Smith v. City of New York, Myra S. Smith, representing herself, asked the court to prevent the City of New York from interfering with, changing, or ending her work arrangement or terminating her employment while the case continued.
The City opposed the request. To obtain a preliminary injunction, Smith had to show that she faced harm that could not be repaired with money, among other requirements.
Judge Schofield denied the motion because possible termination or demotion could be remedied with monetary damages. Judge Schofield also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Smith v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-11136
- Lorna Schofield
- June 16, 2022
Background
Myra S. Smith, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for a preliminary injunction on May 11, 2022. She sought an order preventing the City of New York from “interfering with, altering, or discontinuing” her normal work arrangement and from terminating her employment while the case was pending. The City filed an opposition on May 24, 2022.
Legal standard
The court stated that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show irreparable harm, either a likelihood of success on the merits or serious merits questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. Irreparable harm means harm that is actual and imminent and cannot be remedied through monetary damages.
Ruling
The court denied Smith’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The order explained that her concern that she might be terminated or demoted was insufficient because any resulting harm could be remedied with monetary damages. The court also ordered that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Clerk of Court was directed to serve the order on the self-represented plaintiff and close the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.